Reliability and Validity of the Safety Assessment Scale for People with Dementia Living at Home
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: With the recent funding changes in health care services, more seniors with dementia are cared for in their homes and the nature of their condition puts them at higher risk for accidents and injuries. PURPOSE: The Safety Assessment Scale (SAS) was developed for use by community healthcare providers to evaluate and lower the risk of accidents, provide recommendations to family caregivers and enhance case management. Method. The scale was assessed in terms of the reliability as well as content, criterion and construct validity with 176 community-residing people with dementia in Quebec, Alberta and British Columbia. The Safety Assessment Scale was validated in French and English. RESULTS: The SAS demonstrated an excellent test-retest (ICC=.91) and inter-rater (ICC=.88) reliability. Results for validity were also extremely good. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: The scale is available in French and English. The short version of the SAS is a screening tool and the longer version provides an in-depth evaluation of safety and intervention planning. The SAS can be used by a variety of health care professionals who work with individuals who have dementia.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".